Sysiyo said: “No, most people have just grown tired of mocking you, since you're not even worth mocking”, and: “You should learn to use the quote function my dear, I haven't got a clue to what you're really replying to with this line”.

The Poet replied: “How could you possibly ascertain that, given you're only one of those people?”, and adds: “Now, you’re just being lazy. The first sentence of my reply surprisingly corresponds with the first sentence of the post I was replying to, ducky”.

The Poet said: “Critique incorporates both positive and negative criticism”, to which Sysiyo replied: “I never claimed the opposite. I simply presumed that an arist in such high position as youself, would understand this without saying”. However, The Poet now refers Sysiyo to his/her previous statement: “Also, you are telling us you did not post your poems here to get critique on them. Thus we can only conclude you posted them because you wanted us to read them, and congratulate you on what a brilliant poet you are, giving satisfaction to your vain ego”.

The Poet said: “The statement you quoted was initially posted in response to a different question altogether, and inherent meaning neither applies to, nor contradicts, the current subject of discussion”, to which Sysiyo replied: “That is bullshit and you know it yourself”. Well, the statement to which The Poet refers was: “A true artist is always striving to equal his/her last piece; not surpass it” in response to a discussion concerning whether artists strive to either equal or better their most recent projects, and not the discussion on whether an artist is continually acquiring artistic ability through experience whilst ageing. Although relating to a similar theme, The Poet’s response to the former discussion cannot, directly, be applied as The Poet’s perspective to the latter discussion, as relevance is lost in such an exchange.

This thread is kept on Dukewhite's request because of the entertainment value, and the occasional serious discussion about the nature of art.

That's just a plain insult. I thought a moderator was supposed to discourage such abuse. True, you can read the thread, yet I've been prohibited from replying to such criticisms as the following, within that thread:

DukeWhite said: "revolutionary schmevolutionary. You keep saying this word but there's not much of a revolution in your work. Nor is bumping a post revolutionary. Nor staying in contact with your readers. I cna understand your desire to do whatever "revolutionary" thing you want, but stop fucking posting about how revolutionary you are. If we think you're revolutionary, we'll let you know. If not, go somewhere where people do. Maybe someone somewhere else will recognize your genius and spread the revolution to even larger masses of interested people".

I neither deemed my poetry, nor staying in touch with those who read it, nor bumping a thread to be: "revolutionary". The latter is your strongest of three weak, ill-informed, arguments, given my aside: "Revolutions break rules", to highlight bumping a thread as a trivial matter.

My dear Poet, (what, are you the only poet in the world, that you call yourself the pretentious, capitalized title of "The Poet"?) this is a messageboard made for entertainment. We monitor and seek to promote quality in our posting; we have no obligation to allow full freedom of speech.

When the speech in question is offensive, boorish, goes against the rules, or mis-uses the forum amenities, our moderators have full right to shut it down. They can also ban users and delete posts, you know.

Edit: Okay, so I'm wasting my time here 'cause I'm procrastinating, but really, we should just ignore all anotherpoet's threads and let them sink down and be deleted.

On second thought, don't. You amuse me far too much in your inherent stupidity.

Besides, you have given us repeated proof by your behaviour that you do not care for criticism, positive or negative. You think youself so perfect that nothing we could say to you changes your opinion on Your High Self, Your Fantastic Poetry or Your Exceedingly Revolutionary Revolution.

Denial of freedom of speech equates to a primary aspect of fascism, so, in effect, you're stating the forum is fascist. I've bumped a thread once, without an awareness of the anti-bumping rule. That's a pretty trivial mis-use of forum amenities, given I've not repeated it since.

There's nothing offensive about my posts on this forum whatsoever. Yours veer towards being offensive much more than mine.

I've bumped a thread once, without an awareness of the anti-bumping rule. That's a pretty trivial mis-use of forum amenities, given I've not repeated it since.

It was not your bumping of the thread only, it was your behavior afterwards, how you were so cool and such a rebel for breaking our rules. As you showed no sign of following the rules, in fact quite the opposite, I decided, as the fascist dictator of this forum, to lock your thread to give you an example in the art of obeying rules, as stupid as they might seem to you.

As for your 'defeating' each of my arguments... you've twisted my words, in good stalinist traditions you've re-written history and clouded truth with obscure sentence-structures and bizarre claims, in order to make it seem like you're the ever-wise and your world the Unchallengable. Your very being radiates twisted selfishness, a sick certainty of your own rightness. This has clouded your perception so badly that you do not even know yourself you're lying.

I insult you only because I derive the greatest pleasure from it. Like a cat, I play with my mouse before going for the kill.

You're either using your brain to shit or your arse to think. I'll let you decide which. By the way, your response continues to flatter yourself. In fact, you're, paradoxically, indulging in the very behaviour you insist I indulge in. You're hilarious, and you don't even know it.

You've only just realised that, yet it's been the case ever since you began criticising my views*. Your frequent jesting, and base retorts further humiliate you.

*I know you were being sarcastic, though, seeing as your recent replies increasingly mimic those of a sixteen year old, I anticipate you might pretend to derive a non-ironic message from the asterisked response.

It was most wonderful of you to give me more to write about. I was a tad worried I would run out of insults to hurl in your general direction when you so cunningly realised what I was doing. Although apparently you still do not realise why I'm doing it. Which is so much for the better, for having fun in your expense would be notably less fun should you actually start behaving like a rational human being and actually realise what I'm doing. Or maybe not... considering that I am on so much higher plane of intelligense than you, it might be possible for me to continue this amusing little game even when you have seen though my pretense by adopting further and further mocking masks to look down upon you.

I'm sorry for reducing this comment to such unamusing ramblings, actually. You seem to have damaged my views and my skills of mockery far more than I thought by displaying such grand intelligense.

With your amiable permission, I shall retire from this conversation for today.

As far as I can see, you've really only made one post that actually belongs in the I Was An Artiste forum, and you didn’t post it there.

In reply to:

It's impossible to improve upon my poetry, given I'm satisfied with it.

You are a pretentious sack of shit, do you know that? Poetry, like all art forms, can never be perfected, only gradually improved.

Frankly I think you just might be the most annoying poster I’ve seen in the past year. Your overuse of replies is tiresome, as is your condescension. See? Other people can use big words too.

Do you not understand the need for board etiquette? Your freedom of speech is not guaranteed by this mb. Here, you are at the mercy of the moderators and the opinions of the other posters. Sysiyo, poorsoul, and the other posters you’ve insulted are respected members of this community, all of whom have been here a heck of a lot longer than you. You would be well advised to stop assuming you’re better, more intelligent, and more original than they are. If you want to continue posting the way you have been, maybe you should go elsewhere.

I doubt it. You seem determined to have the last word, even though I had the definitive word from the outset. Well, I've thouroughly enjoyed responding to your feeble lack of an argument, and base insults. Here you are, then...Make another attempt to justify your evident stupidity on me, and I promise I won't respond*.

*Anticipates double-bluff of Sysiyo not replying, and somewhat paradoxical retort to the effect I've given up.

If you read the entire thread, you'll notice Sysiyo gave me no choice other than to patronise him/her. It's certainly not intended to elevate myself, as I also mentioned: "Sysiyo said...Sysiyo replied".

"...pretentious sack of shit" - Nice to know you're capable of playing Devil's Advocate. Your paragraphs can be turned on their head against Sysiyo, Starlite, and the rest of your clique, though you won't admit it ;>)

By using the aforementioned quote function (that you can learn to use in the FAQ, which I strongly recommend reading), you could have squeezed those five posts into one, effectively saving badwidth as well as generally giving a more pleasant appearance of yourself.

In reply to:

I doubt it. You seem determined to have the last word, even though I had the definitive word from the outset. Well, I've thouroughly enjoyed responding to your feeble lack of an argument, and base insults. Here you are, then...Make another attempt to justify your evident stupidity on me, and I promise I won't respond*.

For starters, I am so sad our conversation bores you. I am still having quite fun. Let's see a few of your absurd claims and half-truth, that you seem to consider as 'definitive arguments':

In reply to:

I neither deemed my poetry, nor staying in touch with those who read it, nor bumping a thread to be: "revolutionary".

Yet, after I (amongst others) told you that bumping is not we approve of here, you gave the following response: "Revolutions break rules. In fact, they're against them. I've broken an exceedingly trivial one, and the sky, I'm thankful to say, hasn't fallen" Now I might not understand your revolutionary language, but to me it certainly seems you deemed the act of bumping that thread revolutionary. You also extended that revolutionarism to all acts of breaking rules. That is simply not something I as a moderator could tolerate here. This forum exists in this form we all know and love thanks to a group of rules, some of them admittedly unwritten, that keep it as civil as it is (and trust me, TW is civil compared to other places), while not slipping into a dictatorship of the moderators (again, something I've seen to happen on other boards, the worst example being the finnish Tolkien Society boards where people can be banned if the moderators think their names to do not fit the subject of the boards).

Another quote of yours, from the same Poetry And Purpose -thread: "As far as I know, others here aren't aiming to generate attention to a worthwhile, revolutionary, cause."

So... you're saying that you're not a revolutionary, but you're leading a revolution?

You come here, one of the best forums in the web (arguably), and certainly the free-est, to propagate your revolution, and you encourage the breaking of the few rules we have.

Also, a quote of yours, to justify my opinion of you as vain and selfish:

Pythonis: "why not post your poetry in the Artiste's forum?"Anotherpoet: "I figure more people are likely to read my poetry if it's isolated from the rest."

So, if I'm reading you right (again, your use of the language is so revolutionary I find it hard to find your meaning in the midsts f it all), you were concious all the time of the existance of the Artiste forum, and the fact you should have posted these poems there. But no, you wanted a bigger audience, feeling that you're special you wanted to isolate your poetry from all the other poetry on these boards, and posted it in the wrong forum (hence also making your first breach of TW netiquette). Strikes me as vanity.

One of The Poet's initial replies to accusations of his vanity: "I'm, paradoxically, a down-to-earth person, who respects each opinion as equal, yet mine hasn't been respected here much at all."

Yet, you continuously put down any and all negative comments voiced against you, and your poetry, and continously tell us how you're perfectly satisfied with your poetry and that there is no reason for you to try to improve it. In addition, as said before, you seem to consider yourself so special you can break our rules without any repercussions.

Some other interesting things, too:

In reply to Starlite, Teh Poet said: "I'm confident in my writing, and wish to connect with as many people as possible, so as to have more chance of fulfilling my objectives. That's the reason I'm here :>)"

I find it interesting that you continously allocate to your 'objective' and 'revolution', let you do not give us any information on them. Not that I would be interested, I just find it odd you're here to gather support for some kind of a cause (and don't say you aren't, the above quote proves otherwise), yet you give us no information about this cause... excepting it's revolutionary quality.

T3H P03T, again: "If I was still at school, a critique might, indeed, be helpful, but I'm not, and I'm self-assured about my writing."

I find this statement to be most interesting. Especially the fact that you refer to 'school'. I shall skip the argument about continous evolution I presented against you on the May Day thread, and concentrate on this one word. Why make such a big number about critique and school, and the connection of those two? One can only theorise that you have recently graduated from school, and that you suffered from teachers who did not understand your poetry (for that we cannot blame them)... now that you no longer have to suffer under their despot rules, you hope to post your crap and be told we all love it. Then, when persons such as Pythonis, Persilot, Altoid, Starlite, Wraith2, ThomasJNewton6, TrappedSpirit, Schizophrenic, Poorsoul and My Highly Esteemed Self present critique, you withdraw into your shell, claiming that your poetry is perfect, and proceed to make the most atrocious of all your claims:

"Works of art aren't the product of asking people where you're going wrong. Those are works of entertainment, tailored to suit an audience, prior to an individual."

First of all, you once again generalise (like you did in our little chap about art and evolving), claiming that all works of art are done and displayed for the reasons you have done. Secondly, if what you said were true, your posting of your poems here made absolutely no sense: You apparently came here without knowing anything about these boards and their inhabitants. Hence your poetry cannot be tailored to suit this audience, as you did not know it beforehand. Additionally, even if you wrote it to entertain us, I could very few people who actually said they were entertained by your poetry: Beltene and Cucumber were the only ones voicing positive comments on the May Day thread. Hence it can easily be said that your attempt to tailor poetry to entertain your chosen audience was a huge failure.

Additionally, I consider it to be this forum's greatest strenght that there are many artistically talented people here (anothercrappoet excluded) to whom one can present one's latest works and ask for their opinions. I post my work here in order to get criticism of them, in order to better my works. That does not mean I would be unsatisfied with what I have done. Far from it, there are several pieces which I consider to be amogst the best I have ever seen. But still, even the fact that I'm satisfied with them does not make them perfect, and it does not mean there would be no room for improvement.

(Anticipates a reply from 7eh P037, with more twisting of words where she does not in fact reply anything I have said, and then proceeds to claim her infinite intellectual superiority).

It's certainly not intended to elevate myself, as I also mentioned: "Sysiyo said...Sysiyo replied".

You MUST be an alterego, because noone else would be either so stubbornly idiotic, or unable to follow an argument.

Yes, you wrote "Sysiyo said, Sysiyo replied," but Sysiyo is his username. If you'd not intended to elevate yourself you should have written "anotherpoet said," or even "Anotherpoet said." Capitalizing your username is fine, since that's like capitalizing a given name.

Once again, "Sysiyo" is Sys' username, NOT a title he's chosen to give himself.

You, however, called yourself The Poet, capitalizing both "the" and "poet," which is NOT your username, but a title. It's the same as if Sysiyo had suddenly started calling himself The Moderator. In fact, if you'd insisted on calling yourself The Poet, then that's exactly what you should have called Sysiyo.

That would have just made you pretentious for writing in poofy third person, which is pretentious enough.

(By the way, before arguing further with me about not being pretentious, might you go to dictionary.com and check what "pretentious" means, just in case? You seemed to be unaware of the meaning of both "to capitalize" and "perfection" earlier, I just want to make sure we have no confusion here.)

I'm posting on lots of forums, using pseudonym: "The Poet". I'd be posting here using that same pseudonym if that username hadn't already been taken. As mentioned, it's your assumption I've chosen to emphasise the definite article in my username; not my intention. Thus, the rest of that unpleasant rant you posted is irrelevant.

I only wrote in the third person as Sysiyo had indicated he was unable to decipher what comments in my post referred to without the aid of quotations. I've mentioned this before, just as succinctly, yet you've, as usual, neglected to read it; either that or comprehend it ;>)

Haha...Okiedokie. I'll govern everything I say in accordance with exact dictionary definitions. Seeing as insults are apparently acceptable around here, I observe that both of you are exceedingly stupid ;>)

May I say that giving yourself the pseudonym "The Poet" is pretentious in the first place?

And that using that pseudonym anyway when it isn't yours here is just really stupid?

And believe it or not, sweetie, "use quotations" does not mean "speak in third person." (See, there we have that pesky definition of things getting in the way again.) It is perfectly possible to use quotations in conjunction with "I said, then you said."

But actually, I understand why you used third person, and I didn't say any use of third person was pretentious. Only "poofy third person," which is what you get when you start giving yourself stupid titles.

In reply to:

exceedingly stupid

And you had to look to the dictionary for that? Come on, at least call me something fun like a solipsistic dandiprat.

Notice also that despite your insistance that my criticism of you stems from being in a clique with Sysiyoa) Mr. p2c and I have never gotten alongb) His poem is not very flattering to Sys who is, indeed, a friendc) I do not necessarily agree with the poem's messageAnd yet that does not stop me from admiring it, because it has something your poetry lacks: wit and at least a modicum of talent.

Edit: although I do find Mr. p2c's interest in some of friends' masturbation habits slightly disturbing.

I hate the way poems in this forum are extolled above scripture . . . The Word of God, for Christ's sake. I suggest the urgent posting of the opening of St John's Gospel or some of the psalms if you want to see real beauty in words.

I only wrote in the third person as Sysiyo had indicated he was unable to decipher what comments in my post referred to without the aid of quotations.

Otherwise all well and good, miss, but I never said that. My exact words were "You should learn to use the quote function my dear", where I was referring to single sentence of your writing that I could not place in it's proper context. If you are, indeed, a member on several other message boards as you claim, you should know the differentce between 'quote function' and 'quotations'.

There are two possible outcomes from your inability understand this difference: your grasp of the english language is really very poor (as already illusitrated in Starlite's post, concerning your inability to understand the proper meaning of words like 'perfection'), in which case I'd recommend you return to that school you spoke so disparagingly, and pay more attention during the english classes. It's a rather useful language, you know.

The possible outcome is that this is, again, an example of your attempting to rewrite history so that it'll better fit to what you're trying to say now. Unfortunately (for yourself), this time it was not one of your own meanings you attempted to alter, but one of my posts. You might have heard of a concept called 'truth' sometime in your pitiful life. And I'm not talking of truth in the philosophical sense, I'm talking of truth as in what has passed. Thanks to this being a message board, we have explict written records of everything that has passed during the course of this argument. You cannot claim to have said a thing different from what you really said, unless you also alter the original post accordingly. Again, I find you displaying such fascist (or, actually in this case stalinist) traits you accused me of. (Interestingly, would this make me Hitler and you Stalin?).

In reply to:

As mentioned, it's your assumption I've chosen to emphasise the definite article in my username; not my intention. Thus, the rest of that unpleasant rant you posted is irrelevant.

It is not. You see, you could (should) have written 'the Poet', not 'The Poet'. And once again, you claim to do one thing when your conduct suggests another. And your cunduct is so strong you cannot really hide what you really are like.

On a side note, is this excellent argumentation an example of the "definitive" arguments by which you've held an upper hand "from the outset" (direct quotes from yourself)? Because it's certainly not very convincing. Again, your inability to formulate arguments longer than three sentences utterly limits your ability to actually argue. The only arguments you present against what Starlite said are ones that are either contradicted by your behaviour (see above), ones of which we could have no previous knowledge about (and hence as far as we know, you might have made up), and your entire conduct against illusitrates the fact you do not properly grasp the english language.

In reply to:

Make another attempt to justify your evident stupidity on me, and I promise I won't respond*.

To tell the truth, I think this is a bit counter-productive from you, and it would indeed seem to me you have given up.

First of all, I never requested you to stop replying to me (I might have told you to 'go to hell', but that is once again an entirely different matter). As I have repeatedly stated, I am immensely enjoying your conversation, and would be very sad if it stopped.

Second, your sudden decision to stop replying to me would to my eyes seem to illusitrate the fact that you simply no longer know how to counter my arguments. In my previous post and this one, I have illusitrated the facts that you:

(1) Are unable to follow rules and have limited grasp on why they exist,(2) Are selfish enough to post in the wrong forum when you knew you were posting in the wrong forum,(3) Are unable to deal with negative criticism,(4) Are probably a sixteen-year-old angsty goth girl, despite your claim to the opposite,(5) Have failed in your aim to entertain us with you poetry,(6a) Are either unable to properly understand the english language, or(6b) Have attempted to re-write the past course of this conversation so that it would seem you have "had the definitive word from the outset".

Additionally, you took Hannibal_Lecter (a clear alter ego if there ever was one) seriously, displaying stupidity of a degree hitherto unseen on these forums.

I'm British. I live in Manchester, England. You've been referring to me as female, so it required stating again that I'm male. I don't understand your retort. Does it have any meaning? Kindly explain it, so I can share in your wisdom.

I'm behind you 100% in your whole revolution thing Mr Poet. We can write letters to people asking if they wanna be in our revolution. We can design a way cool banner, sit around a campfire as you read us your poetry (with marshmallows!) That'll teach em all!

Haha...In other words, it's drivel. I'd like to see Starlite step in for you now. Come on, Starlite. You have a try at telling me what Sysiyo's retort means. Or anyone, for that matter. It just seems like irrelevant drivel to me; a view, more or less, confirmed by his subsequent refusal to explain it. That is, of course, unless one of the rest of you can do this ;>)

I assure you, that is no mere drivel. I have, quite simply, reverted to the same level of arguing that you have. I make claims, then refuse to explain them in any passable way, and shall soon declare my superiority in intelligense when compared to you, make claims that I have clearly won this argument, claim that you are behaving in an uncivil manner, use ugly emoticons, blame you for being difficult to connect with, blame you for fascism, misuse grammar, break forum rules and then brag about it, behave like a martyr during the following conversation, twist my previous statements in order to make them seem 'correct', twist your previous statements in order to make them seem 'correct', blame you for verbal abuse, claim that I am not selfish, behave like a martyr again, start adding small lines in the end of my posts in which I anticipate your replies, retort into gross insults, claim that I have had the upper hand in our argument all the time, blame you for stupidity, blame you for lack of logic and civility, twist your words again, start behaving like a member of the opposite sex, and finally call you to prove your words since I'm too stopid to understand writing.

If you have anywhere near the time and inclination you've had to address each point raised in all of my posts prior to my questioning of your retort, then you most certainly have both the time and inclination now. It's just that you can't provide an explanation ;>)

Okay, first of all, what happened to this?----> "I'll be gone after Tuesday :>) " --THE POETI've just checked my computer AND my calender and it appears to be Wednesday, a day after Tuesday.

Second of all, Sys's retort was probably his most obvious out of all. Either you really don't understand it because you're subconsciously trying to hide from the truth of it, or you really DO understand it and you think for some reason Sys won't be able to prove what it means. Either way you're being silly.

You also lied again on May 28th when you said you'd be gone in 4 days. That would have been, what...June 1st? Whoa! It's June 23rd today!

If you have anywhere near the time and inclination you've had to address each point raised in all of my posts prior to my questioning of your retort, then you most certainly have both the time and inclination now.

Actually I did not at the point simply have the time. As strange as it might sound to you, I have a life outside TW. As for the explanation, please refer to Elvenlass' post. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. Which only proves your intellectual inferiority. At least I do not claim I didn't say that thing, which is what you'd probably do.

But I'll give you a hint of what I meant; a quote of mine from the above: "[you] Are probably a sixteen-year-old angsty goth girl, despite your claim to the opposite".

Is this a bad time to ask what "bumping" is? If so, never mind, I'll ask another time...

Making a post for no reason except to bring a thread up the forums. The act is referred to as bumping (as you 'bump' the thread forward), and a typical bump message (indeed one of the kind Le Poét used) usually reads as follows:

After two days of voting, it has been decided that Sysiyo, whether his points are mute or not, is the winner of this highly amusing flame war. I'm sorry, anotherpoet, but in a purely democratic method of deciding the champion of what appears to have been not so much a battle of wits (you were involved after all) as a battle of tenacity. Though we have all undoubtedly enjoyed this whole affair, please accept that the populous of TW has spoken.

We will gladly accept a final post from you before you take your shitty poetry and "revolution" to anotherforum as long as it includes a letter of concession to the victor, Sysiyo.

The voting was rigged!It has come to my attention that Sysiyo was offering sexual favors in exchange for favourable votes.I don't have a problem with dirty playing but Sys is obviously stepping on Beltene's toes, which is a heinous crime in my book.

I've been trying to do that from the outset, Mousey. It's just that my views emphasise the individual, and others here seem to have difficulty accepting them, even though I respect their right to have differing views.

anotherpoet, all berating aside, the type of rapid successive posting which you have done here, each reply containing a single line, is another piece of TW etiquette that you'd be advised to follow, just like not bumping. I don't know if you've noticed, but the server here is not the most reliable, and posts like these do not help the situation. In the future, if you decide to stick around, please remember that one can open up a new window in which to view all the threads in flat mode that you wish to quote from, and copy and paste your [ quote ] functions from each of them, making a single all-inclusive reply. This isn't something to try and be rebellious about as it can cause you to get banned, with no judgements on your art or freedom of speech entering into it. Just as in the real world, one must exist within the society and obey all the laws to earn his freedoms, such as freedom of speech, the same applies on the internet.

Seems a little counterproductive for the revolution and all if you can't get on a message board to spread it through your crap poetry. It's marketing and exposure. You said yourself you want to make connections with people. Seems like youd try to play by the rules a bit in order to garner support before you start bucking the bit. But you've demonstrated that logic is not your strong point (nor is poetry, but you're satisfied with it, so who are we to judge) so I'm sure the concept of workign from the inside of the establishment to destroy it is beyond your comprehension.

Ok then, if you're going to take that mature approach I will write a short paragraph. I will simply ask a question. I don't mean this in any way other than to get an answer from you because, while all this is amusing to me, I simply can not comprehend your motives. So please help me understand.

I posted three of my poems here so as to draw attention to a revolutionary, artistic cause, and hopefully stay in touch with those who appreciate my poetry and connect with a sense of opportunity in the header to the conclusory message: "Poetry and Purpose", as already expressed.

Unless Lecter is genuinely interested, I haven't succeeded in the above goal on this particular forum.

So as someone who is genuinely interested in progressing art through some sort of revolution, would it not be a better use of your time to count your losses and not waste time where your genius is not respected and you seem to have little hope of gaining support for said cause? I understand what you are trying to do, but staying here and bickering endlessly doesn't help anyone. You could be spending this time and energy posting somewhere else where the possibility still exists of gathering people to your revolution, while we could continue with our message board the way we have for years. It's easy to get bogged down in flame wars of this kind, but I just can't understand how, having a set purpose, you can continue to do so when it doesn't benefit you or your artistic cause. That is all I am trying to figure out.